I've been thinking about what sort of package the SEC could offer that would secure the properties they and ESPN want without causing any distress or cutting it close financially.

Namely, the goal here is to add Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas while realigning into 3 regional divisions.

Behold, one of my craziest notions yet...

I call it SEC 2

What is it?

A plan to secure the future of any program that:

1) Might be regarded by one of the key schools as necessary to protect from Power conference oblivion

2) Might offer access to quality content in a new market

3) Might offer academic excellence to a new consortium

If the Big 12 splits up then one of the more significant problems with dividing the properties is getting the other Power leagues to take schools that don't really offer a windfall for them financially. There are only a few schools in the Big 12 that could do that for any other league. This problem is amplified if ESPN is able to wrangle the best properties into their family and "not share" with everyone else.

What to do?

Well, providing a conference home for a large number of 2nd tier programs is a daunting task no matter how you slice it. The American is obviously in a great position to land some schools that add to their stature. The problem is that ESPN doesn't really have a mechanism to give the AAC a windfall beyond what they're making now(which is very little). Sure, a few Big 12 schools moving to the AAC would drive the price up for the whole league and guarantee better ratings and a more desirable product for ESPN or another network.

The league would still be in a great deal of flux though because it's unlikely ESPN or perhaps a new competitor in the streaming market would be able to give the AAC a figure that was on par with what those former Big 12 programs were used to receiving. Why is that a problem? Because those schools are now used to a certain way of life, if you will. Significantly reducing their payouts could have adverse affects on not just the programs' competitiveness but on the schools' ability to promote themselves in the modern economy. The latter especially could influence various politicians to act on behalf of the Big 12 to save it due to the fear that state schools could lose stature.

I think perhaps that this is one of the reasons we've been slow on movement. There is a great deal at stake for several schools unless a mechanism is in place to give them a soft landing. Frankly, most of the Big 12 is not that attractive to the rest of the P5. I think it may be a hard sell to get the other leagues to make moves so firmly outside their comfort zone.

The networks will to a great degree tell the leagues who they're going to take, but it has to be beneficial for the networks before they'd be interested in telling one league to take a specific program. I don't see a reason ESPN or FOX would cooperate to disband the Big 12 if they have to pony up a lot of extra cash for the same product...especially when that product doesn't really move the needle.

ESPN could unilaterally disband the Big 12 by placing at least 8 between the SEC and ACC, but that has its own problems with regard to adding enough value to both leagues to justify higher payments. That and there's the geography of it...putting 3-4 schools in the ACC from an entirely different region of the country would be difficult.

I theorize that ESPN would like to stick the 4 programs I mentioned earlier in the SEC because that's where they can maximize content value and maintain some geographical contiguity. There's also the fact that the SECN has been a huge success and increasing its overall worth in the marketplace is probably not a bad idea.

Points to consider...

1) ESPN cannot afford to give the AAC its own network and the content level would be such that it wouldn't be profitable anyway.

2) In a world of streaming, the ESPN family will essentially merge into one online entity. The distinction from one channel to another will last as long as cable is relevant, but streaming technology will blur those lines significantly

3) With both of those points in mind, consider that the branding of content will take on a whole new definition. Instead of flipping channels to find what's on, we'll end up either specifically searching for our own schools or most likely the biggest game on at the time. That's a subtle difference between how it works now and how it will work in the world of streaming. The networks won't limit what you can watch in a certain time slot because it will all be available simultaneously depending on game time. This could actually cause ESPN to place the highest possible ratings generators on standard cable at all times which will limit the exposure of many less watched programs.

Now you might ask, don't they already do that? In a way they do, but the networks are limited by two things. First, while networks obviously want the best ratings they can get, they also have to fill air time which means they stagger their events to fit all the windows on all the applicable channels. The second thing is that they are constrained by the market model...the networks have to consider who's involved in the match-up and what sort of penetration those particular teams get in their market as well as whether or not they attract attention outside of those markets.

Streaming will give a great deal of freedom to networks to do their best to attract as much attention to their games as they can. The networks will want the biggest match-ups they can get as often as they can get them because they still need cable subs and ads to be relevant. They also need big match-ups via streaming as that is the best bet to attract subs and good ad rates there. It's one reason why using the SEC to acquire the top brands out of the Big 12 makes the most sense as it would create more ratings heavy match-ups and therefore make TV scheduling easier for the networks and more attractive for viewers.

So what does this do for schools that might not be as attractive in the marketplace?

Fans of these schools will specifically be searching for their games, but casual fans are much less likely to watch them. Their access to these games on cable will be more restricted due to a focus on bigger match-ups. Meanwhile, the match-ups on streaming will have to fill unique time slots in order to get more attention...kind of like how you see MAC games in the middle of the week on ESPN.

In other words, in the same way that removing ESPN from certain cable packages could have the effect of reducing ratings for less watched networks, the concentration of top tier programs playing each other could reduce how much other programs are watched online. The casual fans won't be drawn to them because the games won't appear on their TV screens without their conscious choice. BUT that's not altogether a bad thing...

The great benefit of streaming is that you aren't limited by the number of time slots available on cable TV. You can actually increase your overall audience by bringing more content to the table. Sure, some of those middling conference games won't get the same ratings, but everyone can be on TV so if everyone can have access to their favorite team's games then you can actually reach more fans. From the networks' perspective, the ad rates will be relevant on cable TV because the time slots are still scarce. Whatever the ad rates are via streaming will matter less as the system will function differently because it will come down more to total viewers via the platform rather than viewers per game. It also won't matter as much when and where they're watching.

I suspect that this is an aspect of Disney's new strategy to start more aggressively acquiring content. The more content you have the more unique viewers you can garner.

So anyway, a while back I suggested that the SEC partner with a G5 league and utilize the SECN to show content from another conference. No one really latched onto that idea. Perhaps it was just too off the wall. Or perhaps it wasn't off the wall enough! Let me do you one better.

Here's an option...

Create a new membership system where the SEC essentially owns a 2nd tier of schools. I'm not talking about the SEC owning the media rights for a G5 as obviously the league is not a media company. I'm talking about a partnership that focuses on a few key goals...scheduling flexibility, academics, revenue creation, cost-cutting, and branding.

Now the current and future members of the SEC proper would maintain control of the organization, but the members of SEC 2 would have certain guarantees and privileges.

What does that look like?

What if you took a grouping of schools mostly made up of American and Big 12 members and granted them a "junior" membership. I'm not talking about the sort of thing where a school like Nebraska is a member of the B1G, but is forced to endure a period where they don't enjoy full privileges. I'm talking about a partnership whereby two leagues act as one within a certain context.

1) Administration is headquartered with the SEC proper rather than having 2 conference offices and administrative structures. That could be a significant reduction in costs

2) The two leagues pool their content together and create inertia in the marketplace. Two leagues operating under the same media contract will demand a higher payday because a great deal of content will be lost to whoever decides not to pay for it.

The AAC is likely being underpaid currently, but their organization is a weak partner to negotiate against because of their economic weight. "Merging" with the SEC and uniting under one media contract will allow the league to have a "big brother" on their side and get a decent market value for their content.

3) I suggest an 18 member league to act as SEC 2 and while this league would play for its own conference championship and probably send representatives to a G5 playoff, guarantee that each member gets 2 games with members of the SEC proper. This creates more content in house and protects certain regional match-ups of interest.

4) Utilize the SEC Network to show a ton of extra games on Thursday and Friday nights...primarily SEC 2 games. The unique time slots will create better ratings for cable and streaming.

5) While most SEC 2 games would not be shown on cable in a given week, they'll all be available via streaming. The branding power of the SEC will be put to use to not only attract attention to the games, but provide an additional platform for them via cable(SECN) and streaming(primarily by showing SEC vs SEC2 games).

6) Each member of the SEC and SEC 2 becomes an equal member of the academic consortium.

7) SEC 2 members are guaranteed preferred status when it comes to future expansion if there is any. In other words, if SEC 2 members meet certain metrics then they may be granted full SEC membership.

8) This arrangement will guarantee greater postseason access for the entire organization. The SEC proper will have a participant in the CFP and several bowl teams. The SEC 2 will also have several bowl teams and be allowed to take the place of an SEC member should the league not fulfill its bowl quota thus ensuring a more consistent flow of revenue from the postseason.

In addition, I suggest that the SEC follow the format of the Sugar Bowl and start partnering with other leagues to co-own bowl games and ensure participation and a splitting of a higher percentage of funds.

9) The LHN will be converted to a Spanish language version of the SECN and it will have the benefit of possessing a large amount of new content in Latino rich areas.

10) This leads me to the pay structure. Even if the SEC adds 4 quality members to its roster and receives a bump, they still can't afford to share equally with 18 additional little brothers. What do you do?

The pay structure will have to be tiered. I would suggest a basic 2 to 1 principle. The SEC gets 2/3 of conference distribution while SEC 2 gets the other 1/3.

Between the inertia created by one contract, additional in house content, new content for SECN, and additional access to postseason games; I think we may have something.

(08-18-2017 11:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: I've been thinking about what sort of package the SEC could offer that would secure the properties they and ESPN want without causing any distress or cutting it close financially.

Namely, the goal here is to add Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas while realigning into 3 regional divisions.

Behold, one of my craziest notions yet...

I call it SEC 2

What is it?

A plan to secure the future of any program that:

1) Might be regarded by one of the key schools as necessary to protect from Power conference oblivion

2) Might offer access to quality content in a new market

3) Might offer academic excellence to a new consortium

If the Big 12 splits up then one of the more significant problems with dividing the properties is getting the other Power leagues to take schools that don't really offer a windfall for them financially. There are only a few schools in the Big 12 that could do that for any other league. This problem is amplified if ESPN is able to wrangle the best properties into their family and "not share" with everyone else.

What to do?

Well, providing a conference home for a large number of 2nd tier programs is a daunting task no matter how you slice it. The American is obviously in a great position to land some schools that add to their stature. The problem is that ESPN doesn't really have a mechanism to give the AAC a windfall beyond what they're making now(which is very little). Sure, a few Big 12 schools moving to the AAC would drive the price up for the whole league and guarantee better ratings and a more desirable product for ESPN or another network.

The league would still be in a great deal of flux though because it's unlikely ESPN or perhaps a new competitor in the streaming market would be able to give the AAC a figure that was on par with what those former Big 12 programs were used to receiving. Why is that a problem? Because those schools are now used to a certain way of life, if you will. Significantly reducing their payouts could have adverse affects on not just the programs' competitiveness but on the schools' ability to promote themselves in the modern economy. The latter especially could influence various politicians to act on behalf of the Big 12 to save it due to the fear that state schools could lose stature.

I think perhaps that this is one of the reasons we've been slow on movement. There is a great deal at stake for several schools unless a mechanism is in place to give them a soft landing. Frankly, most of the Big 12 is not that attractive to the rest of the P5. I think it may be a hard sell to get the other leagues to make moves so firmly outside their comfort zone.

The networks will to a great degree tell the leagues who they're going to take, but it has to be beneficial for the networks before they'd be interested in telling one league to take a specific program. I don't see a reason ESPN or FOX would cooperate to disband the Big 12 if they have to pony up a lot of extra cash for the same product...especially when that product doesn't really move the needle.

ESPN could unilaterally disband the Big 12 by placing at least 8 between the SEC and ACC, but that has its own problems with regard to adding enough value to both leagues to justify higher payments. That and there's the geography of it...putting 3-4 schools in the ACC from an entirely different region of the country would be difficult.

I theorize that ESPN would like to stick the 4 programs I mentioned earlier in the SEC because that's where they can maximize content value and maintain some geographical contiguity. There's also the fact that the SECN has been a huge success and increasing its overall worth in the marketplace is probably not a bad idea.

Points to consider...

1) ESPN cannot afford to give the AAC its own network and the content level would be such that it wouldn't be profitable anyway.

2) In a world of streaming, the ESPN family will essentially merge into one online entity. The distinction from one channel to another will last as long as cable is relevant, but streaming technology will blur those lines significantly

3) With both of those points in mind, consider that the branding of content will take on a whole new definition. Instead of flipping channels to find what's on, we'll end up either specifically searching for our own schools or most likely the biggest game on at the time. That's a subtle difference between how it works now and how it will work in the world of streaming. The networks won't limit what you can watch in a certain time slot because it will all be available simultaneously depending on game time. This could actually cause ESPN to place the highest possible ratings generators on standard cable at all times which will limit the exposure of many less watched programs.

Now you might ask, don't they already do that? In a way they do, but the networks are limited by two things. First, while networks obviously want the best ratings they can get, they also have to fill air time which means they stagger their events to fit all the windows on all the applicable channels. The second thing is that they are constrained by the market model...the networks have to consider who's involved in the match-up and what sort of penetration those particular teams get in their market as well as whether or not they attract attention outside of those markets.

Streaming will give a great deal of freedom to networks to do their best to attract as much attention to their games as they can. The networks will want the biggest match-ups they can get as often as they can get them because they still need cable subs and ads to be relevant. They also need big match-ups via streaming as that is the best bet to attract subs and good ad rates there. It's one reason why using the SEC to acquire the top brands out of the Big 12 makes the most sense as it would create more ratings heavy match-ups and therefore make TV scheduling easier for the networks and more attractive for viewers.

So what does this do for schools that might not be as attractive in the marketplace?

Fans of these schools will specifically be searching for their games, but casual fans are much less likely to watch them. Their access to these games on cable will be more restricted due to a focus on bigger match-ups. Meanwhile, the match-ups on streaming will have to fill unique time slots in order to get more attention...kind of like how you see MAC games in the middle of the week on ESPN.

In other words, in the same way that removing ESPN from certain cable packages could have the effect of reducing ratings for less watched networks, the concentration of top tier programs playing each other could reduce how much other programs are watched online. The casual fans won't be drawn to them because the games won't appear on their TV screens without their conscious choice. BUT that's not altogether a bad thing...

The great benefit of streaming is that you aren't limited by the number of time slots available on cable TV. You can actually increase your overall audience by bringing more content to the table. Sure, some of those middling conference games won't get the same ratings, but everyone can be on TV so if everyone can have access to their favorite team's games then you can actually reach more fans. From the networks' perspective, the ad rates will be relevant on cable TV because the time slots are still scarce. Whatever the ad rates are via streaming will matter less as the system will function differently because it will come down more to total viewers via the platform rather than viewers per game. It also won't matter as much when and where they're watching.

I suspect that this is an aspect of Disney's new strategy to start more aggressively acquiring content. The more content you have the more unique viewers you can garner.

So anyway, a while back I suggested that the SEC partner with a G5 league and utilize the SECN to show content from another conference. No one really latched onto that idea. Perhaps it was just too off the wall. Or perhaps it wasn't off the wall enough! Let me do you one better.

Here's an option...

Create a new membership system where the SEC essentially owns a 2nd tier of schools. I'm not talking about the SEC owning the media rights for a G5 as obviously the league is not a media company. I'm talking about a partnership that focuses on a few key goals...scheduling flexibility, academics, revenue creation, cost-cutting, and branding.

Now the current and future members of the SEC proper would maintain control of the organization, but the members of SEC 2 would have certain guarantees and privileges.

What does that look like?

What if you took a grouping of schools mostly made up of American and Big 12 members and granted them a "junior" membership. I'm not talking about the sort of thing where a school like Nebraska is a member of the B1G, but is forced to endure a period where they don't enjoy full privileges. I'm talking about a partnership whereby two leagues act as one within a certain context.

1) Administration is headquartered with the SEC proper rather than having 2 conference offices and administrative structures. That could be a significant reduction in costs

2) The two leagues pool their content together and create inertia in the marketplace. Two leagues operating under the same media contract will demand a higher payday because a great deal of content will be lost to whoever decides not to pay for it.

The AAC is likely being underpaid currently, but their organization is a weak partner to negotiate against because of their economic weight. "Merging" with the SEC and uniting under one media contract will allow the league to have a "big brother" on their side and get a decent market value for their content.

3) I suggest an 18 member league to act as SEC 2 and while this league would play for its own conference championship and probably send representatives to a G5 playoff, guarantee that each member gets 2 games with members of the SEC proper. This creates more content in house and protects certain regional match-ups of interest.

4) Utilize the SEC Network to show a ton of extra games on Thursday and Friday nights...primarily SEC 2 games. The unique time slots will create better ratings for cable and streaming.

5) While most SEC 2 games would not be shown on cable in a given week, they'll all be available via streaming. The branding power of the SEC will be put to use to not only attract attention to the games, but provide an additional platform for them via cable(SECN) and streaming(primarily by showing SEC vs SEC2 games).

6) Each member of the SEC and SEC 2 becomes an equal member of the academic consortium.

7) SEC 2 members are guaranteed preferred status when it comes to future expansion if there is any. In other words, if SEC 2 members meet certain metrics then they may be granted full SEC membership.

8) This arrangement will guarantee greater postseason access for the entire organization. The SEC proper will have a participant in the CFP and several bowl teams. The SEC 2 will also have several bowl teams and be allowed to take the place of an SEC member should the league not fulfill its bowl quota thus ensuring a more consistent flow of revenue from the postseason.

In addition, I suggest that the SEC follow the format of the Sugar Bowl and start partnering with other leagues to co-own bowl games and ensure participation and a splitting of a higher percentage of funds.

9) The LHN will be converted to a Spanish language version of the SECN and it will have the benefit of possessing a large amount of new content in Latino rich areas.

10) This leads me to the pay structure. Even if the SEC adds 4 quality members to its roster and receives a bump, they still can't afford to share equally with 18 additional little brothers. What do you do?

The pay structure will have to be tiered. I would suggest a basic 2 to 1 principle. The SEC gets 2/3 of conference distribution while SEC 2 gets the other 1/3.

Between the inertia created by one contract, additional in house content, new content for SECN, and additional access to postseason games; I think we may have something.

The SEC would have an 8 school playoff. Six division winners and 2 at large schools. We would incorporate the ACC, SEC, and part Oklahoma & Texas plus a few privates of note.

That would permit restructuring because Wake would not be left out, Rice & Tulane would be included and ESPN would have outright ownership to the rights of 36 schools that encompass two of the most rabid fan bases and two of the most watched conferences with the largest market.

Bristol, Charlotte and Austin would all be the production centers for 2 divisions each.

Our champion plays the representative of the PAC / Big 10 / and upper portion of the Big 12.

It has lots of content, great academics, and enough essentially lower caliber programs to keep the win / loss curve essentially where it is.

The SEC would have an 8 school playoff. Six division winners and 2 at large schools. We would incorporate the ACC, SEC, and part Oklahoma & Texas plus a few privates of note.

That would permit restructuring because Wake would not be left out, Rice & Tulane would be included and ESPN would have outright ownership to the rights of 36 schools that encompass two of the most rabid fan bases and two of the most watched conferences with the largest market.

Bristol, Charlotte and Austin would all be the production centers for 2 divisions each.

Our champion plays the representative of the PAC / Big 10 / and upper portion of the Big 12.

It has lots of content, great academics, and enough essentially lower caliber programs to keep the win / loss curve essentially where it is.

I would love that and as far as consolidation goes, I think that would be much better.

I'm not sure we could get to a point where the SEC and ACC could essentially merge though without a full blessing from ESPN. Of course, it may happen one day, but I think it will be constructed in such a way that the two together won't be able to create a new market dynamic.

My thinking on the SEC 2 idea was that the SEC could unilaterally create a new market dynamic by partnering with a league that's motivated to find a new paradigm. I guess I'm piggybacking on that old idea of the SEC absorbing the Big 12.

This one has the admittedly weird feature of creating a "second class citizenry" within one conference. I think it solves certain problems and maybe creates others. Anyway, I figured these schools might take the deal if they couldn't get a better one in another P5 and I'm not sure very many of them could.

The SEC would have an 8 school playoff. Six division winners and 2 at large schools. We would incorporate the ACC, SEC, and part Oklahoma & Texas plus a few privates of note.

That would permit restructuring because Wake would not be left out, Rice & Tulane would be included and ESPN would have outright ownership to the rights of 36 schools that encompass two of the most rabid fan bases and two of the most watched conferences with the largest market.

Bristol, Charlotte and Austin would all be the production centers for 2 divisions each.

Our champion plays the representative of the PAC / Big 10 / and upper portion of the Big 12.

It has lots of content, great academics, and enough essentially lower caliber programs to keep the win / loss curve essentially where it is.

I would love that and as far as consolidation goes, I think that would be much better.

I'm not sure we could get to a point where the SEC and ACC could essentially merge though without a full blessing from ESPN. Of course, it may happen one day, but I think it will be constructed in such a way that the two together won't be able to create a new market dynamic.

My thinking on the SEC 2 idea was that the SEC could unilaterally create a new market dynamic by partnering with a league that's motivated to find a new paradigm. I guess I'm piggybacking on that old idea of the SEC absorbing the Big 12.

This one has the admittedly weird feature of creating a "second class citizenry" within one conference. I think it solves certain problems and maybe creates others. Anyway, I figured these schools might take the deal if they couldn't get a better one in another P5 and I'm not sure very many of them could.

I think the stipend issue and tax reporting issues, and the fact that players may organize at private schools, but not at state ones will all eventually come into play to force the privates into a separate association. There's no reason that can't be all under a conference banner as a second independent association that draws governance from auspices of that conference. The TV pay doesn't have to be equal so that would help as well.

In that kind of world the consolidation of the state schools becomes far more possible than many might think they could be today. All P conferences would be left with holes with the departure of privates. That alone would open the door to a different reason to merge interests in addition to the gaining of leverage and the flexibility we would find in scheduling.

If they are separated into to two entities like the State Schools and Private Schools then there is no need for relegation.

Financial commitments, TV contracts, and GOR's would prevent relegation otherwise, unless of course such action occurred at the end of contracted periods. I don't see anyone going for that because those relegated would go 20 years without being able to reapply. And then there are legal issues if a school upgraded in a major way in order to get in, and then lost enough to be relegated back out but still with major debt remaining on the facilities they had to add to get in.

It works in Europe because it is among private clubs operating essentially within their municipalities. Here they are longstanding state entities and the states would sue if they lost revenue.